Previous post
In honor of Presidents’ Day, ostensibly the day where the office of the President of the United States is honored (I much preferred honoring the two exceptional men the holiday was initially built around, Washington and Lincoln), we have this little gem from CampusReform.org, who gives us these lovely pieces out of a textbook being used by the University of South Carolina, in a class called “Introduction to Social Work Profession and Social Welfare.” The textbook decries President Ronald Reagan as a sexist who “failed to promote women to positions of power during his presidency.”
As Caleb Bonham, editor-in-chief of CampusReform.org, notes:
The excerpts sent to Campus Reform make no mention of Reagan’s appointment of Sandra Day O’Connor, the first female Supreme Court Justice; his appointment of the first female U.S. Representative to the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick; Elizabeth Dole, the first female appointed to Secretary of the Department of Transportation; or that over 1,400 women were chosen by Reagan to fill powerful, policy-making positions.
Other excerpts from the same textbook go on to describe conservatives in general terms as people who “oppose change” and “have a pessimistic view of human nature,” which then implies that because conservatives have such a dismal view of humanity, conservatives therefore see no point to giving charity to people who are “corrupt” and should be taking care of themselves.
While many studies differ on who gives to charity more, conservatives or liberals, the general view is that conservatives give more to religious or faith-based charities, while liberals give to secular charities. Even the Washington Post, back in 2012, conceded that the monetary amount is equivalent between the two groups. So much for that eternal pessimism dampening that charitable giving, huh?
The textbook also contains such wonderful little nuggets about how the wealthy prefer to have a “poor social class” available to do menial work, because the wealthy like to look down on the little people. Why is this relevant in a textbook about social work and social welfare? Isn’t the point of social work to help the poor and give them a hand up, and eventually make them wealthy? Silly me. I forgot that this is a college course, and social work is now all about proclaiming the virtues of the poor while dissing the wealthy, and demanding lots of government money.
Incidentally, this textbook, Brooks/Cole Empowerment Series: Introduction to Social Work & Social Welfare: Critical Thinking Perspectives, 4th Edition, (more excerpts can be seen here through a Google Books preview) is listed with the “college bookstore wholesale price” of only $149.50. Which leads me to ask, who exactly is getting the money from the sale of this textbook? Because surely, no one should be getting wealthy off it. That would be wrong. Why is this textbook not sold at a price that even a poor college student could afford?
It was not that long ago that the media – decrying the fell influence of the Tea Party – suggested that Reagan was a reasonable, rational moderate who had no hope of being nominated in today’s radical and extreme Republican Party. But now it looks as though that “respect” for Reagan has dried up (it could not last, of course), and the hatred has started to shine through again.
I fondly recall watching lefty journalists in the 1980s literally become choked with rage and hate at the mere thought of that…that…nuclear warmonger in the White House. Sam Donaldson was especially entertaining, and even the normally placid George Will sometimes amused himself by tweaking Donaldson’s nose on TV about the Gipper (which enraged Donaldson even more).
Deanna, you are absolutely right about the outrageous price of textbooks. I teach mathematics at a community college, and the cost of textbooks is a scandal. Worse still are the periodic “new editions”, in which there are tiny, insignificant changes from the previous ones. But because our college requires its students to do math homework online, and since the online homework depends on the textbook edition, students get stuck with having to buy a new edition every two or three years.
(In my defense I want to say I don’t get a single penny from the textbook companies. And in response to what I believe are major complaints about price from students and teachers the publishers have started offering a lower cost online edition of the textbook. That’s better, but there is still more that could be done.)
ALman says: No doubt the text is another fine example of excellence in scholarship. Inasmuch as it concerns “critical thinking” it must have an outstanding bibliography, filled with such citations as comments from a speech made by Joe Biden, from a joke told by Miley Cyrus, and from a “sensational” news report made by Chris Matthews. Moreover, to demonstrate that they’re willing to provide examples of the other side, other citations are included from such notables as David Duke of the KKK, Charlie Manson, and, of course, that fine example of scholarly work represented by Mein Kampf (Adolf Hitler, author). So, I’m sure it must be worth every penny of the price.
2 Comments